Whatever I was going to write about tonight, forget about that. Tonight, I’ll be live-blogging (well, as live as I can get, looking at my TV) the Democratic debate on MSNBC.

I must say, from just a few minutes of watching it, wow. This is unlike any other debate I’ve ever seen. The others so far (both Dems and Republicans) have been solid, stagnant, and just downright yawn-worthy. This one on the other hand, you have Democrats sniping at Democrats, and a pretty active exchange between the moderator and the candidate. Doesn’t seem as though there are many standing rules in this one.

Unfortunately, I think that Tim Russert (the moderator) is having some trouble controlling the candidates, which might not bode well later in the night, when they’re all feeling a little heated. They’ve already exchanged some pretty heated remarks. For example, Mike Gravel lambasted everybody but Dodd and Biden for voting against a resolution calling the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization, which Gravel is basically calling a prelude to a war with Iran.

Update 9:30pm EDT: Seems they’re a little more controlled on questions about if they’ll back Israel if they’d respond to a threat against their security. Also, I don’t think any of them are going to tonight, or ever, speak out against Israel, at least outright. They’d be dead-in-the water. if they do.

Update 9:32pm EDT: Richardson seems to be using the McCain rhetoric on the immigration issue. Didn’t really answer the question, which was about Sanctuary Cities, though. Good answer on it, Biden. The right answer, IMHO.

Obama didn’t really answer the question.

Don’t do it, Dodd……ooooh…not answering the question.

Kucinich isn’t afraid to answer Russert’s question…not my favorite answer, though.

Hilary kind of skirted around it. Not much different from Obama. Interesting explanation for why you wouldn’t stop Sanctuary Cities, though. She has a point that other illegals might not talk if they’d be afraid of being deported. They might be able to find other people, though? Who knows..

Gravel just went off on a tangent completely. Started talking about education or something. Didn’t even try blaming the feds.

Update 9:47PM: If Hilary’s plan really is what she says (I need to study it more before making a final decision), then kudos to that. It’s what I’ve been talking about here. Not exclusively either solution.

Update: 9:50PM: Edward’s solution sounds idealistic. I’m not sure what a President can do about his cabinet’s or VPs healthcare (probably little to nothing), but Congress isn’t going to vote out its own. Sounds good, but isn’t going to happen.

Update 9:54PM: Russert’s going after the candidate’s past management problems. This might get nasty. Don’t know if I like the accusatory tone he’s taking with them though. He’s supposed to be the moderator, not a judge.

Update 10:00PM: “Do you want your children read a book about same-sex princes?”

Edwards: Hard to tell his real answer. “I want my children to decide.”

Obama: More of less, I think, “Yes.”

Clinton: “Parents should decide. And all of you should vote for the hate crimes bill.”

Up to come…Social Security and Medicare.

Update 10:15PM: I’m sorry, I can’t really pay attention to all this economics talk, lol. Lets see…

Richardson: Don’t remove the cap. And the amendment to the constitution to balance the budget sounds stupid. The document is how to run the government, and to open up rights to people who are being denied them. Not for economic policy. That’s why we have a Congress and a process to create laws. Create a binding law in Congress to do it, not an amendment.

Edward’s argument on people making $50 million paying SS tax on only $97,000, while middle class people paying tax on all or almost all their money has some merit, though. Maybe what’d be better (and I though I heard Kucinich say this), but why not tax on a percentage? How about…just throwing out an arbitrary number…say 50%? That way, people making $20,000 are only paying taxes on 10, and people making $20 million, and paying on $10 million?

Of course, can’t do that, because the Republicans would say it’s redistributing the wealth, and vote against it.

Update 10:22PM: On to smoking now…Ban it in public places?

Hilary: Leave it local…no federal law.

Obama: The locals are doing a good job. If they can’t, then yes on federal.

Biden, Kucinich, Edwards and a couple others: YES!

Drinking age…lower?

Biden: No. Counterproductive, and there’s a problem with women drinking while carrying.

Dodd: No

Richardson: No. Need national commitment to rehabilitation.

Gravel: Yes.

Kucinich: Yes. Lets have confidence in young Americans.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards: No.

Lighting round time….lets see who gets under 30.

Obama: No.

Clinton: No.

Biden: He almost got by the challenge with a two word answer, lol.  And he got under it with a more complete one.

Kucinich: No.

Gravel: Yes.

Dodd: No.  So instead he’s going to go way over.

Obama again: Almost got it.

Richardson: No.  WAY OVER.

Ok, back to issues now.

Obama: We can’t get out magically.  Must do it in a way that makes sense.

And a weaving camera.  As a student of television production, that makes me laugh a little.

Update 10:42PM: I think Gravel is a little idealistic on wind power.  Never going to happen in so few years.

Sorry, kind of ignored the rest of the debate.  Was talking to someone on IM.  I like the last question about the baseball, though.